
^'•"' .<> 



y 



°4. *•-•• A ' 







r *& 



r oV 



l~ . « • 




4V *4* 



> ••".o*v.^r*o 

















% ° ^ 







^CT 



* *>* 



^ O *.„«>> .0-' V *.,,« of O * 

^ ^ •jife*- ^ / Otoe ^* ^ 




**>> < 
^o^ 



,v s 



<r* *r^>y; 



•P 



<\~ - « • 



xs 













& «••% ^ 





IB-* j°~ v 
% 









'W 

.v** 













%<** .*. 



w 



















^ ^' 

















vv 







^<? 






"^b a> v oil** "^ ,o^ t - 1 ''* "V a> % o«r* % <e* 














\\ ++<? 





r 

?^>^ 



E NO tER.N MAN WIT J SOI 




SOUTHERN MAN WITH AMERICAN PRINCIPLES. 



The partisans of Mr. Van Buren, in older to recommend him to the suffrages oJ the 
South, have invented for him the title of "the Northern Man with Southern Principles." 
Let us try this title by the test of evidence, and compare it with Gen. Harrison's claims, 
examined in the same, way, to the favour of the South. 

I. The power of the Federal Government to abolish Slavery in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia is regarded by all the slaveholding States as a lest question. What 
are the opinions of the two candidates on this question? 

MR. VAN BUREN'S OPINION. 

On the 23d of February, 1836, Messrs. Junius Amis and others, citizens of North-Caro 
lina, addressed a letter to Mr. Van Buren, in which they say: 

"A portion of your fellow-ripens in this section, feeling a deep anxiety as to your views on a 
topic which most vitally affects our immediate welfare and happiness, have thought proper to propound 
to you the following interrogatory, to which we wish an explicit answer : 

li Do you or do you not believe that Congress has the constitutional power to interfere with 01 
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia?" 

On the 6th of March, 1836, Mr. Van Buren answered the question in an argumenta- 
tive and explanatory letter, in which he says : 

" I would not, from the lights now before me, feel myself safe in pronouncing that Congress does 
not possess the power of interfering with or abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia." 

This, though not as explicit in its language as it might have been, is explicit enough in 
substance. The English of it is, that Mr. Van Buren does "believe that Congress has 
the constitutional power to interfere with or abolish slavery in the District of Columbia." 

In a subsequent part of the same letter he says, if elected, 

" I must go into the Presidential chair the inflexible and uncompromising opponent of any attempt, 
on the part of Congress, to abolish slavery in the District, of Columbia, against the wishes of the slave- 
holding Si. lies; an I also with the determination, equally decided, to resist the slightest interference 
with the subject in the States where-it exists." 

GEN. HARRISON'S OPINION. 

On the 30th of September, 1836, Judge John M. Berrien, of Georgia, addressed a letter 
to Gen. Harrison, in which the following question is asked: 

" Can the Congress of the United States, consistently with the Constitution, abolish slavery either 
in the States or in the District of Columbia ?" 

( ren. Harrison answers : 

'• I do not think that Congress can abolish, or in any manner interfere with slavery, as it exists in 
the States, but upon the application of the States, nor abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, 
without tli • consent of tho Statealpf Virginia and Maryland, and the people of the District. The first 
would be, in my opinion, a palpablo violation of the Constitution, and the latter a breach of faith 
tow anls the States I have mentioned, who would certainly riot have made the cession, if they had 
Supposed that it would ever be used for a purpose so diiFerent from that which was its object, and so 
injurious to them as the location of a free colored population in the midst of their slave population of 
tho same description. Nor do I believe that Congress could deprive the people of the District of Co- 
lumbia of their property, without their consent. It would be reviving tho doctrine of the tories of 
'i.tain, ip relation to the ppwi r if Parliamei "fore the revolutionary war, 



M f X 

; i 

and in direct hostility to the principle advanced by Lord Chatham, that ' what was a man's own \v *• 
absolutely and exclusively his own, and could not be taken from him without his consent, given by 
himself or his legal representative.' " ( . 

To a similar question, put by Thomas Sloo, Jan., of New-Orleans, Gen. Harrison 
answers, November 25th, 1836: 

" First. I do not believe that Congress can abolish slavery in the States, or in any manner interfere 
with the property of the citizens in their slaves, but upon the application of the States ; in which case, 
and in no other, they might appropriate money to aid the States so applying to get rid of their slaves. 
These opinions I have always field, and this was the ground upon which I voted against the Missouri 
■restriction in the Fifteenth Congress. The opinions given above are precisely those which we)n 
entertained by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison. 

"Second. I do not believe that Congress can abolish slav ry in the District of Columbia, without 
the consent of Virginia and Maryland, and the people of the District." 

In his speech at Vincenncs, Indiana, July 4th, 1835, Gen. Harrison says that the 
efforts of the abolitionists are ''weak, injudicious, presumptuous, and unconstitutional," 
and are in conflict with the rights of the States. V-'inn that speech wasdelivered, the halls 
of Congress were flooded with petitions for abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. 

In a letter to Harmar Denny, dated December 2, 1838, Gen. Harrison states, as a 
principle "proper to be adopted by any Executive sincerely desirous to restore the Ad- 
ministration to its original simplicity and purity;" "that, in the exercise of the veto 
power, he should limit his rejection of bills to, 1st, such as are in his opinion unconstitu- 
tional ; 2d, such as tend to encroach on the rights of the States or of individuals ; such as, 
involving deep interests, may in his opinion require more mature deliberation, or reference 
to the will of the people, to be ascertained at the succeeding elections." 

It thus appears that Mr. V.an Buren believes that a bill abolishing slavery in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia will be constitutional, but would v*to it because he thinks that it 
would be inexpedient ; and 'that Gen. Harrison would veto such a bill, ou the- -ground 
of its being unconstitutional. On which pledge can the South more safely rely? On 
Harrison's pledge, founded on a confessed Want : bf' power and of right ; or on Van 
Buren's pledge, asserting the, power and the right, but waiving the exercise of them on 
considerations of expediency, which may be one thing to-day and another thing to-mor- 
row? Gen. Harrison's pledge meets the question at the threshold, and settles it ; Mr. 
Van Buren's pledge keeps the question perpetually open to the influence of ever- varying 
circumstances. 



II. VOTES AND SPEECHES OF MR. MARTIN VAN BUREN. ON THE ELECTIVE FRAN- 
CHISE AND NEGRO SUFFRAGE, DULY AUTHENTICATED AND VERIFIED. 

Extracts from the Journal of the Convention of the State of New- York, b'gun and 
held at the Capitol in the City of Albany, on the 28th day of August, 1821 : 

[Page 90.] '• Thursday, ten o'clock, A. M., S3ptember 20, 18277" 

"The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. On motion of Mr. N. Sanction], the Convention 
then resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the Report of the Committee on the right of 
suffrage, and the qualifications of persons to he elected ; and after some time spent thereon, Mr. Pre- 
sident resumed the chair, and Mr. N. Williams, from the said Committee, reported, that in further 
proceeding on the said Report, the first amendment proposed bythe S lect Committee was again read, 
in the words following, to wit: 

" Evt ry white male citizen, of the age of twenty-one years, who shall- have resided in this State 
six months next pr< ceding an}- election, and shall, within one year preceding the election, have pajd 
any tax assessed upon him, or shall, within one year pr: ceding the election, have been assessed to 
work on a public road, and shall have performed the work assessed upon him, or shall have paid an 
equivalent in money therefor, according. ,td law, or shall, within one preceding the election, have been 
carolled in the militia, of this Slate, and shall have served therein according to law, shall be entitled 
to vote at such election in the town or ward in which he siiaj reside, for Governor, Lieutenant- 
Governor, Senators, Members of the Assembly, and all other officers who are or may be elected by 
the peosle. 

"That Mr. Jay made a motion to strike out the word "white," in the first lino of the said amend- 
ment. 

" That debates were had thereon ; and the question having been put, whether the Committee would 
agree to the said motion, it was carried in the affirmative. 

"That the yeas and nays being callod for by Mr. R. Clarke, seconded by Mr.Tallmadgc. and having 
been required by ten members, were as follows, to wit : Ayes, 63. Nays, 59. 



Mr. Bacon, 
Baker, 

Barlow, 

B ■ckwith, 

Birdseye, 

Bricnkerhoff, 

Brooks, 

Basl, 

Burroughs, 

Carver., 

R, Clarke, 

Collins, 

Cramer, 

Day, 

Dodge, 

Duer, 



Mr. 



Mr. 



Mr. 



FOR TIIF 


AFFIRMATIVE. 




East wood, 


Mi 


. Park, 


Mr. Tall m ad ge, 


Edwards, 




Paulding, 


Tuttle, 


Ferris, 




Pitcher, 


Van Buren, 


Fish, 




Piatt, j 


Van Ness, 


Hallock, 




Re< va, 


J. R. Van Rensselaer. 


Hees, 




Rhinolander, 


S. Van Rensselaer, 


Hogeboom, 




Richards, 


Van Vechten, 


Hunting, 




Rogers, 


Ward, 


Huntington, 




Rosebnigh, 


A. Webster, 


Jay, 
Jones, 




Sanders, 


Wendovcr, 




N. Sandford, 


Wheaton, 


Kent, 




Seaman, 


E. Williams, 


King, 




Steele, 


Woodward, 


Moore, 




D. Southcrland 


, Wooster, 


Munro, 




Swift, 


Yates. 


N.dson, 




Sylvester, 




FOR THE NEGATIVE. 




Hunt, 


Mr 


Rad cliff, 


Mr. Starkweather, 


Hunter, 




Rockwell, 


J. Sutherland, 


Hurd, 




Root, 


Taylor, 


Knowles, 




Rose,'. 


T sh Eyefc, 


Lansing, 




Ross, 


Townleyj 


Lawrence, 




Russell, 


TownsencU 


befferts, 




Sag-, 


Tripp, 


A-. Livingston, 




R. S mclford, 


Van Fleet, 


P. R; Livingston, 


Schenck, 


Van Home, 


McCall, 




Se (ley, 


Vcrbrvek, 


Millikin, 




Sharpe, 


E. Webster, 


Pike, 




Sheldon, 


Wheeler, 


Porter, 




J. Smith, 


Woods, 


Price, 




R. Smith, 


Young. 


Pumpelly, 




Spenaer, 








" State of 


New.York, Secretary's Office 



Bowman, 

Breese, 

Briggs, 

Carpenter, 

Case, 

Child, 

D. Clark, 

Clyde, 

Dubois, 

Dyckman. 

Fairlie, 

Fenton, 

Frost, 

Howe, 

Humphrey, 

'• I certify that I have compared the foregoing extracts with the original passages contained in the. 
Journal of the Convention of the State of New-York, begun and held at the Capitol, m the City of 
Al!> my on the twenty-eighth dav of August, 1821, printed by the Printers to the State, and deposited 
j,, this office, and now in my custody, and that the same are correct transcripts therefrom, and of the 

whole of the said original passages. ,,,-., , c a- t .,1 *u- 

" In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of office, at Albany, this 

twenty-third day of June, 1840. "JOHN C. SPENCER, Secretary of State: 1 

Extracts from Carter and Stone's Reports of the proceedings and debates in the Con- 
vention of 1821, assembled far the purpose of amending the Constitution of the State oi 

New- York. , n „ , an . 

Extract from proceedings of Thursday, Sipiember 27, 1821— pa^e 2/7. 

RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE. 

"Mr. Van Bdren lilt himself called on to make a few remarks in reply to the gentleman from 
Delaware He observed that it was evident, and, indeed, some gentlemen did not seem disposed t< 
disuse ii that the amendment, proposed by the h nourable gentleman from Delaware, contemplated 
nothing short ofuniv irsal suffrage. Mr. Van Buren did not b. lieve that there Were twenty members 
of tharCoinniit.tr/ who, were t\n: hare naked question of universal suffrage put to them, would yott 
in its favor; and he was very sure that its adoption was not expected, and would not meet the viewt 
of their constituents. n -. 

" Mr Van Buren then replied to a statement made yesterday by his honorable and venerable Ineiu 
from Erie (Mr Russell,) in r lation to the exclusion of sofciiers who had fought at Quebec and Stone} 
Point, under the banners of rVIontgoraery and Wayne. And ho felt the necessity of doing this, be 
caus ,'auch caS e ,i by such gentlemen as his honorable friend, were calculated to make a dee] 

and lasting impression. But although a regard for them did honor to that gentleman, yet it was the 
duty of the Convi ution to | ua d against the admission of those impressions which sympathy, m mdi 
vidua! cases, may excite. It was always dangerous to Legislate upon the impulse of individual cases 
where the law, about to be enacted, is to have a gem ral operation. With referenc 



ice to the case of ou 



sjfdiers the people of this State and Country had certainly redeemed themselves frbffl .he imputatioi 

t ,at republics are ungrateful; with an honorable liberality they had bestowed the military lands upoi 
them and to gladden the evening of their days had provided them with pensions-. Few of those ,, 






, the numbei • is yearly diminishing In fii rs, the 

ivered all tl i r.v survived. Was it not, then, unwise to hole 

some restrictive provision, lest, in its operation, it might affect these few individuals for a very short, 
time? lie would add no more. His duty would not permit him to say lesB. 

" One word on the main question before the Committee. We had already reached the verge of uni- 
versal suiVrage. There was but ona step beyond. And are gentlemen prepared to take that. 
were cheapening this invaluable right. He was disposed to go as far as any man in the extension of 
rational liberty; but he could not consent to undervalue this precious privilege so far as to confer it, 
with tin undiscrhninatinghand, upon every one, black or white, who would be kind enough to conde- 
c md to accept it." 

Extract from proceedings of Saturday, October 6, 1821 — page 366. 

The question in order was on the part of the section expressed in the words following; 

"And, also, everj^ male citizen, of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been, for three 
/ears ii"xt preceding such election, an inhabitant of this State, and for the 1 ist y far a resident in the 
town, county, or district, where he may offer his vote, and shall have been, within the last year, 
assessed to labor upon the public highways, and shall lave performed the labor, or paid au equivalent 
therefor, according to law, shall be entitled to vote in the town or ward where he actually resides, and 
not elsewhere, for all officers that now are or hereafter may be elective by the people. 

" Mr. Van Buren said, that as the vote he should now give, on what was called the highway qua- 
lification, would be different from what it had been on a former occasion, he felt it a duty to make a 
brief explanation of the motives which governed him. The qualifications reported by the first Com- 
mittee were of three kinds, viz : the payment of a money tax, the performance of military duty, and 
working on the highway. The two former had met with his decided approbation ; to the lattei 
wished to add the additional qualification, that the elector should, if he paid no tax, performed no 
militia duty, but offered his vote on the sole ground that he had labored on the highways, also be a 
householder ; and that was the only point in which ho had dissented from the report of the Committee. 
To effect this object, he supported a motion, made by a gentleman from Dutchess, to strike out the 
highway qualification, with a view of adding "householder." That motion, after full di3cussion, had 
prevailed by a majority of twenty. But what was the consequence? The very next day, the same 
gentlemen who thought the highway tax too liberal a qualification, voted that every person of twenty- 
one years of age, having a certain term of residence, and excluding actual paupers, should be per- 
mitted to vote for any officer in the Govenment, from the highest to the lowest — fir eut-viuing, in 
this particular, the other States in the Union, and verging from the extreme of restricted, to that of 
universal suffrage. The Convention, sensible of the very great stride which had been taken by the 
last vote, the next morning referred the whole matter to a Select Committee of thirteen, whose re- 
port was now under consideration. That Committee, though composed of gentlemen, a large ma- 
jority of whom had voted for the proposition for universal suffrage, had now recommended a middle 
course, viz: the payment of a money tax, or labor on the highway, excluding militia service, which 
had, however, been very properly reinstated. The question then recurred, shall an attempt he again 
made to add that of householder to the highway qualification, and run the hazard of the re-introduc- 
tion of the proposition of the gentleman from Washington, abandoning all qualifications, and throw- 
ing open the ballot-boxes to every body — demolishing, at one blow, the distinctive character of an 
elector, the proudest and most invaluable attribute of freemen ?" 

Etract from the proceedings of Monday, October 8, 1S21. 

QUALIFICATIONS OF COLORED PERSONS. 

[Page 374.] Mr. Platt moved to expunge the proviso in the first section, which declares that no 
person, other than a white man, shall vote, unless he have a freehold estate of the value of two hun 
dred and fifty dollars. 

[Page 376.] Mr. Van Buren said he had voted against a total and unqualified exclusion, for he 
would not draw a revenue from them, and yet deny to them the right of suffrage. But this proviso 
met his approbation. They were exempted from taxation until they had qualified themselves to vote.^ 
The rirrht was not denied, to exclude any portion of the community who will not exercise the right. 
6f suffrage in its purity. This held out inducements to industry, and would receive his support. 

[Pago 377.] The question on striking out the proviso was then taken by ayes and noes, and decided 
. i follows : 

FOR THE NEGATIVE. 



Mr. 



Baker, 

Beckwith, 

Bowman, 

Breese, 

Hriggs, 

Burroughs, 

Carpenter, 

Carver, 

Case, 

D. Clarke 



Mr. Howe, 

Humphrey. 

limit, 

Hunter, 

Hunting, 

Hurd, 

Lansing, 

Lawrence, 

A. Livingston, 

P. R. Livingston, 



Mr. Reeve, 

Richards, 

Rockwell, 

Rose. 

Ross, 

Russell, 

Sage, 

R. Sanford, 
nek, 
.an, 



Mr. Tallmadge, 
Taylor, 
Ten Eyck, 
Townley, 
Townsend, 
Tripp, 

Tuttle. 
Van Bun n, 
Van Fleet, 
Van Home, 



Ah Call, 




Seelej. 


Ward, 


Moore, 




Snafpej 


A. Webstei, 


Nelson, 




Sheldon, 


Wendover, 


Park, 




I. Smith, 


N . Williams, 


Porter, 




R. Smith, 


Woods, 


Price, 




Stagg, 


Yates, 


Pompelly, 




Starkweather, 


Young. — 71. 


Radcliif, 




Swift, 




FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE. 




r. Eastwood, 


Mr 


. Munro, 


Mr. Spencer, 


Fish, 




Paulding, 


Sylvester, 


Hees, 




Pitcher," 


Van Ness, 


Hogeboom, 




Pktt, 


J. R. Van Rensselaer, 


Huntington, 




Rhinolandor, 


S. Van Rensselaer, 


Jay, 




Root, 


Wheaton, 


Jones, 




Sanders, 


E. Williams, 


Kent, 




N. Sandford, 


Wooster.— 33. 



Cramer, 

Dubois, 

Dyckman, 

Edwards, 

Fiiirlie, 

Fenton, 

Ferris, 

Frost, 

Mr. Bacon, 

Barlow, 

Birdseye, 

Brooks, 

Buel, 

Child, 

R. Clarke, 

Day, 

Duer, 

I certify that I have carefully compared the foregoing extracts from the printed book entitled "Re- 
ports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, assembled for the purpose of amend- 
ing the Constitution of the State of New- York, containing all the official documents relating to the 
subject, and other valuable matter, by Nathaniel H. Carter and William L. Stone, reporters, and 
Marcus T. C. Gould, stenographer, Albany — printed and published by E. &, E. Hosford, 1821 " — and 
that the preceding are faithful copies of the passages extracted, and of the whole of such passages. 
Albany, June 23, 1840. JOHN C. SPENCER. 

From the foregoing extracts it appears that Mr. Van Buren, as a member of the 
New-York Convention, supported a proposition which made the negro equal to the white 
man. as to the right of voting. That after settling that principle, he voted to annul the 
restriction of a freehold qualification to the negro voter. That he was of opinion that the 
"invaluable right of suffrage" would be "cheapened " too much by being allowed to 
white men, who paid no tax and performed no militia duty, but who worked on the high- 
ways or public roads, unless they were " householders ;" that the "-invaluable right of suf- 
frage " would not be ■? cheapened " at all by being allowed to negro freeholders. That 
some white men are not good enough, unless they are householders, to vote in any 
election ; but every negro, owning a freehold estate of a given value, is good enough 
to vote in every election, And we are asked to believe that these are " Southern 
principles .'" 



III. OPINIONS OF MR. VAN BUREN AND GENERAL HARRISON ON 
THE COMPETENCY OF NEGRO TESTIMONY AGAINST WHITE 
PERSONS. 

MR. VAN BUREN. 

On the 27th of May, 1839, a Naval General Court-Martial assembled on board the 
United States Ship Macedonian, lying at Pensacola, to try Lieutenant George Mason 
Hooe, of Virginia, on certain charges preferred on the information of Commander Uriah 
P. Levy. In the course of the trial, two negroes were produced as witnesses against him ; 
one the cook, and the other the body servant of his accuser. He objected to their exami- 
nation; the Court overruled his objection, and allowed them to be examined. Lieutenant. 
Hooe declined to cross-examiue them. The proceedings of the Court were approved by the 
Secretary of the Navy. Lieutenant Hooe addressed a memorial to the President, in which 
he complained of the outrage. The President endorsed his decision on the papers in the 
following words: 

"The President finds NOTHING in the proceedings in the case of Lieutenant Hooe which 

REQUIRES HIS INTERFERENCE. JYf y H " 

On the 12th of June, 1840, this subject was brought to the notice of Congress by the 
Hon. John M. Botts, a member of the House of Representatives from Virginia, and on 
the next day that body adopted a resolution calling on the Secretary of the Navy for a 
copy of the record and of the subsequent proceedings. On the 24th of .Tune the copy wa? 



8 

transmitted, being Document No. 244, 26tk Congress, 1st Session, House of Representa- 
tives, Navy Department. 

The following are extracts from the Document : 

[Page 22.] " James Mitchell, Captain's Steward of the United States Ship Vandalia, called and 
sworn. 

" The accused objected to the examination of the witness, upon the ground that he was a colored 
man. 

" The Court, after deliberation, did not consider the objection a valid one, and ordered the exami- 
nation lo proceed. 

" The accused then offered a paper writing, of which the following is a copy, and desired that the 
same be spread upon the record : 

" « The accused begs leave to state to the Court most distinctly that he solemnly protests against 
the evidence of this witness being received and recorded. It is far from the wish of the accused to 
object to any evidence which the Court may deem legal; but the witness is a colored man, and there- 
fore, in the opinion of the accused, is not a competent witness, even before this tribunal. 

'"G. M. HOOE, Lieutenant U. S. Navy.'" 

[Page 23.] " The accused presented a paper writing, of which the following is a copy, and re- 
quested that the same be spread upon the record, which was ordered by the Court : 

" ' The accused having protested against the evidence of this witness, on the ground that he con- 
ceives his testimony to be altogether illegal, that he knows it would be so considered before the civil 
tribunals of this Territory, the forms and customs of which, he humbly thinks, should be as closely 
followed by a martial court as possible ; therefore asks leave to spread upon the record the fact that 
he cannot consent to, and has totally declined cross-examining this witness. 

» ' GEORGE MASON HOOE, Lieut. U. S. Navy." 

[Page 25.] " Daniel Waters Captain's Cook of the United States Ship Vandalia, called and sworn. 

" The accused presented a paper writing, of which the following is a copy, and requested that the 
same be spread upon the record, which was ordered : 

"'The Court having decided to receive and record the testimony of colored persons, the accused, 
in regard to this witness, can only reiterate his objections as set forth in the case of Mitchell, the 
Captain's Steward. The accused will pursue the same course with this witness that he decided to 
take with the other colored man. 

'"GEORGE MASON HOOE, Lieut. U. S. Navy:" 

[Page 42.] " At the close of the proceedings of the Court is the approval of the Secretary of 
the Navy, in these words: 

'" Approved. J. K. PAULDING.'" 

rPaffe 60-61.] Extract from the Letter or Memorial of Lieutenant Hooe to the Presi- 
dent of the Unitsd States. 
"There is one other point in the proceedings of the Court (touching their legality) to which I in- 
vite the particular attention of your Excellency. It respects a matter as to which all Southern men 
are deeply sensitive ; and, if not overruled by your Excellency, will assuredly drive many valuable 
from the Navy. In the progress of the proceedings of this Court, two negroes — one the cook, 
the other the private steward of Commander Levy— were introduced as witnesses against me. I 
protested against their legal competency to be witnesses in the Territory of Florida, on the ground 
that they were negroes. The Court disregarded my exception, and, as the record shows, they were 
allowed to be examined and to testify on my trial. This I charge as a proceeding illegal and erro. 
neous on the part of the Court ; and, if so, according to established law and precedent, must vitiate 
and set aside their whole proceedings." 

[Page 61.] Letter from the Secretary of the Navy to the President. 

" Navy Department, December 14, 1839. 
" Sir • In obedience to your directions, I have the honor to transmit a report in the case of Lieu-« 
tenant George Mason Hooe, and to return the memorial addressed to you by him, in relation to the 
Droceedin^s of the Court on his trial. nim ^ 

P ™I am, b very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. K. PAULDING." 

Endorsement on the above Letter by Martin Van Buren, President of the United States, 

with his own hand. 
«tttv PRFSIDENT FINDS NOTHING IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF 
LIEUTENANT HOOE WHICH REQUIRES HIS INTERFERENCE. 



ANOTHER CASE.— CASE OF MR. MURCH. 

The following letter is from a gentleman of the highest standing in the State of Dela- 
ware : 

Newcastle County, Del., August 3, 1840. ' 

Dear Sip. : That the South may be informed correctly, in regard to Mr. Van Burcn, I send you 
for publication certain facts in relation to his approval of negro testimony, in the trial of an officer in 
the revenue service, before the Collector of this District, in June, 1839. 

At that timo charges and specifications of them were preferred by a certain Henry D. Nones, a 
Captain in the revenue cutter service, against Josiah Murch, then First Lieutenant in tho same ser- 
vice. The Collector of the District, Henry Whiteley, Esquire, was ordered by the Secretary of the 
Treasury to conduct the examination. Mr. Murch was defended by counsel, and tho prosecution in 
behalf of the Captain carried on by counsel employed by himself. The character of the testimony, 
on tho par,t of the complainant, generally, was such, that the counsel for Mr. Murch deemed it unn ;V«v « % «". 
cessary to enter upon any defence ; it was composed entirely of tho crew and officers under the im- 
mediate command of the complainant, (Nones,) and of negroes, his own servants, employed in the 
ward-room. Five negroes, if I am correctly informed, were brought forward to testify. The moment 
the first Was called to the stand, Mr. Murch and his counsel (protesting against such evidence, it not 
being, competent in the Courts of this State for negroes to testify against white persons) left the room. 
The Collector, however, proceeded to take the testimony, and, after closing the same, forwarded it to 
Washington; the whole of which I presume you can find in the office of the Secretary of the Trea- 
sury. A copy of one of the negro depositions I now have before ine. Mr. Murch had his commis- 
sion taken from him; the testimony having been laid before the President and "approved by him." 
So unexpected was this decision to Mr. Murch, and indeed to every one who knew the character of 
the testimony adduced against him, that Mr. Murch thought it proper to appeal directly to the Presi- 
dent for reinstatement. He did so both personally and by letter. To impress more fully upon the 
minds of the powers that be at Washington the injustice done to him, Mr. Murch forwarded to the 
Secretary of the Treasury a deposition of one of the negroes, taken at the negro's own request, after 
his discharge from the cutter, by a magistrate of the town of Newcastle, in which he states that 
what he testified to before Colonel Whiteley, tho Collector, was false, "that he was compelled, by 
threats made by Captain Nones, to give such testimony," &c, &c. Upon the receipt of this deposi- 
tion by Mr. Woodbury, the Secretary of the Treasury, he informed Mr. Murch, in substance, by 
letter, " that this testimony of the negro could not go to rebut his first deposition, but might be made 
the groundwork of new proceedings against Captain Nones" — (I have not the letter before me, and 
therefore merely give the substance) — to which Mr. Murch, under date of September 10, 1839, made 
the following reply, after acknowledging the receipt of Mr. Woodbury's letter of the 6th instant. He 
says : " I have to say that the affidavit of William Kork [negro] was sent to the Department not for 
the purpose of commencing new proceedings against Captain Nones, or any other person, but with 
the object of showing to tiie Department the character of the evidence on which my dismissal has 
been founded." Several letters were written to the Department and to the President, by the friends 
of Mr. Murch, and, I think, a formal remonstrance sent by his counsel to the Treasury Department. 
On the 4th of January, 1840, the Secretary of the Treasury wrote to me (who had addressed a letter 
directly to the President in regard to Mr. Murch) as follows : " Sir, in reply to your letter of the 27th 
ultimo, to the President of the United States, which has been referred to this Department, I would 
inform you that Lieutenant Murch was dismissed from the revenue service by the President, on satis- 
factory evidence of improper conduct, which, though the charges and proof have been once or twice 
re-examined, has never been satisfactorily rebutted or explained." 

These proceedings are now matter of record, or ought to be, in the Treasury Department; copies of 
most of which I took the precaution at the time to retain. If you think any good can be had by publish- 
ing it, please do so, and make whatever remarks you may think proper. I wiil only add that no officer, 
however high or honest, is safe for a moment, if the Government is to tolerate negroes, under the im- 
mediate control of an officer, to give testimony against another whom he has thought proper to prefer 
charges against. 

P. S. You will perceive that Woodbury was willing for Murch to make the deposition of tho negro 
Kork sufficient ground to commence proceedings upon against Nones. 

Mr. Van Buren then thinks it perfectly proper that negroes should be examined 
as witnesses against white men ! ! ! * 

Not so General Harrison. In the Laws of the Indiana Territory, printed at Vin- 
cennes, Indiana, by Messrs. Stout & Smoot, in 1807, and in the Library of the State De- 
partment, Washington City, is the following: 

* While this decision of the President was unknoivn to the public, the Secretary of tho Navy wrote 
a letter, dated April 15, 1840, which has since been published in Mr. Ritchie's "Crisis" of June 20, 
1840. In this letter the Secretary, after justifying the examination of the negroes, and the sentenco 
of the Court, says, •' The President had nothing to do with the Court or its proceedings ! ! ! ! " 



fChaptcr 46, page 311.] " An Act regulating the Practice in the General Court and Court oj ('inn 

man Pleas, anil for other purposes. 
"Section 24. No negro, mulatto, or Indian, shall be a witness, except in pleas of the UuiI.l 
States against negroes, mulattoes, or Indians, or in civil pleas where negroes, mulattoes, or Indians 
alone shall be parties. 

"JESSE B. THOMAS, Speaker of the House of Representative. 

"B. CHAMBERS, President of the Council 

"Approved, September 17, 1807. WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON." 



IV. MISSOURI QUESTION. 
im^L. Akin to the topics just mentioned is the conduct of the two candidates on the Missonri] 
Question : 

MR. VAN BUREN'S COURSE. 

RtjFus Kino was elected a member of the Senate of the United States for six years from 
March 4, 1813, by the votes of the old Federal party in New- York. During the last year 
of his term, a bill was sent to the Senate, from the House of Representatives, entitled " An 
act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State 
Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union, on an equal footiv 
the original Stales." A proposition was introduced into the Senate to amend it by a clause 
prohibiting slavery, which proposition was sustained throughout by Rufus King. '' The 
substance " of two elaborate speeches from him, in favor of it, maybe found in Niles's 
Register, vol. 17, pp. 215-221. 

In a letter dated April 22, 1820, to John Holmes, on the Missouri Question, Mr. J"f- 
ferson says : 

" I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident 
they were in good hands, and content to he a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not 
distant. But this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me. with 
terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union." — [Jefferson's Writings, vol. 4, p. 323.] 

In trie winter of 1819-20, Mr. Van Buren, then a member of the Legislature of New- 
York, published a pamphlet in support of Mr. King's re-election, entitled "Considerations 
in favor of the appointment of Rufus King to the Senate of the United States. He also 
addressed a letter to a fripnd, in which he says : 

" I should sorely regret to find any flagging on the subject of Mr. King. We are committed to his 
support. It is both wise and honest; and we must have no fluttering in our,course. Mr. King's views 
towards us are honorable and sorrect. The Missouri Question conceals, so far as he is concerned, no 
plot, and we shall give it a true direction. You know what the feelings and views of our friends were 
when I saw you, and you know what we then concluded to do. My ' Considerations,'' &c, and the 
aspect of the Albany Argus, will show you that we have entered on the work in earnest. We cannot, 
therefore, look back. Let us not, then, have any halting. I will put my head on its propriety?* 

Rufus King was accordingly re-elected to the Senate. The following preamble and 
resolution were adopted by both Houses of the Legislature of New- York: 

* This extract will be found in page 144 of a life of Mr. Van Buren, (published in 1835,) written 
by William H. Holland, with the aid, he tells us in the preface, of "the Hon. James Vanderpoel and] 
the Hon. Benjamin F. Butler," two w^ll-known partisans of Mr. Van Buren. The authenticity of 
Holland's work is admitted by Mr. Van Buren. Messrs. W. Fithian, J. C. Alexander, and others, in 
a. letter to him, dated Danville, Illinois, May 23, 1840, put several questions, one of which is: "Havo 
you examined Holland's life of Van Buren, of date of 1835 ; and, if so, is it a faithful and true his- 
tory of your political opinions?" Mr. Van Buren answers the letter, June 22, 1840, and says, in 
reference to Holland's life of him : " It has been suggested to me that spurious copies of this work 
have been put in circulation in Illinois; it is therefore desirable that you should send me the copy to 
which your question relates, before I answer it. This I will thank you to do at your earliest convenience, I 
When inspected, it shall be returned to you." — Niles's Register, vol. 58, page 364. On the 29lh of 
August, 1840, Mr. Van Buren sends a further answer ; at the close of which he says : "The publica 
lion sent to me by Mr. Alexander\is a genuine copy of the first edition of Professor Holland's work. 
I herewith return it, with the remark: that it was written without communication with me, but con- 
tains, as far as it goes, a substantially correct history of my political course" 

The extract given in the text is published also in Niles's Register, vol. 49, page 93; the word 
"sorely" being omitted, and the word "committed" being printed "submitted." 



11 

" Wherea3 the inhibiting <>f the further extension ol slavi ry in States is a subjci i <•! 

deep concern to the people of tin sas we consider slavery ;is» an evil much to bodo- 

plored, and that every constitutional barrier should be interposi d to prevent its further extension ; and 
that the Constitution of the United States clearly giving Congress tri tatos, 

not comprehended within the original boundaries jbf the United States, the prohibiting of shivery as 
a condition of their admission iuto the Union ; therefore, 

"Resolved, (if the honorable Senate concur therein.) That our Senators he instructed, and our Rep- 
resentatives in Congress be requested, to oppose the admission, as a Stats, into the Union, of any Ter- 
ritory not comprised as aforesaid, making the prohibition of slavery therein an indispensable condi 
tion of admission." 

On the 29th January, 1820. the Senate .ook up the resolution, and passed the same 
unanimously, the following Senators being present: 

" Messrs. Adams, Austin, Bamum, Bartow, Brown Dudley, Dayton, Ditmiss, Evans, 

Forthington, Hammond, Hart, Livingston, LoundsbeTry, IVIcMartin, Moons, Mallory, Moore. Noyes, 
Piine, Ross, Rosencrantz, Skinner, Swan, Van Buren, Wilson, Young— -29." 

It thus appears that Mr. Van Buren was the champion of the re-election of the gre 
champion of the Missouri restriction; staked his head on its ''propriety/,'" denounced 
any "flagging" "fluttering" or "halting" in sending Mr. King to the Senate again, to 
ring the "knell of the Union ;_and alter haying procured the re-election of Mr. King, 
Ito make assurance doubly sure, joined in instructing him to peal that fearful alarm. 

What, on this subject, was General Harrisons course ? When the Missouri ques- 
tion was agitated in the House of Representatives, at the session of 1818 — 1819, (second 
Congress, fifteenth session,) he was a member of that House from Ohio, a non-slaveholding 
State. The agitation of that question shookj as is wull known, the Union to iis centre 
On reference to the Journal of the House of Representatives, (page 271 — 274, &c, &c.,) 
it will be found that on the motion to prohibit the further introduction of slavery into Mis- 
souri, and on the other questions growing out of that motion, General Harrison voted 
with the South. His course, on this momentous subject, prevented his re-election to Con- 
gress, when he again became a candidate. The National Intelligencer, of October 20. 
1822, says. 

" It is confirmed to us that Mr. Gagely is elected, in opposition to General Harrison. A friend in- 
forms us, which we are sorry to barn, that he was opposed particularly on acconnt of his adherence 
to that principle of the Constitution which secures to tire people of the South their pre-existing 
rights." 



& 



V THE ARKANSAS AND FLORIDA QUESTIONS. 

GENERAL HARRISON'S COURSE ON THE ARKANSAS QUESTION. 

< )n the 18th of February, 1819, a bill for establishing a separate Territorial Govern- 
ment in the southern part of the Territory of Misssouri, was, with certain amendments 
.which had been made thereto, taken up in the House of Representatives. Mr. Taylor of 
■few- York, moved a further amendment, il that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude 
shall be introduced into the said Territory, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes 
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." 

( to this amendmi nt, General Harrison went with the South. — [Sec Journal House 

r Representatives, 2d Session I5ih Congress, 1818-19, page 283-4.] 
MR. VAN BUREN'S COURSE ON THE FLORIDA QUESTION. 

On the Gth of February, 1822, a bill was reported to the Senate of the United States 
for (he establishment of a Territorial Government in Florida. On the Gth of March, 
1822, after various intervening proceedings, the Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
Whole, the consideration of the bill for the establishment of a Territorial Government 
m Florida; and, the bill having been amended, it was reported to the House accordino-lv 
md, ° •>' 

On the question to concur in the amendment to the eleventh section to strike out after 
he word "freedom," in the fourteenth line thereof, the residue of said section, as follows: 

J "No slave or slaves shall, directly or indirectly, be introduced uilo the said Territory, except by a 
citizen of the United St;ites removing into the said Territory for actual settlement; and being, at the 
time of such removal, bona fide owner of Buch skive or shv-s ; or any citizen of (So I T nit >tl State* 



{2 

la 



travelling into the said Territory with any sercaatf or servant*, not exceeding two; and every at 
imported or brought into the said Territory, contrary to the provisions of this act, shall thereupon 
entitled to and receive his or her freedom." 

It was determined in the affirmative : Yeas 23, nays 20. 
On motion by Mr. Mills, 

The yeas and nays being desired by onc-fifth of the Senators present, 
Those who voted in the affirmative are : - 

Messrs. Barbour of Va., Benton, Brown of La., D'Wolf, Eaton, Elliott, Gaillard Holmes of Mis 
JoS/'of Ky., Johnson of La., King of Ala., Lloyd, Macon, Noble, Pleasants, Smith, Soutl.ai || 
Stokes,'"Van Dyke, Walker, War;-, Williams of Miss., Williams of Tenn. 
Tfiilai who voted in the negative are : 

felk Barton, Boardman, Browrvof Ohio, Chandler, Dickerson, Findlay, Holmes of Me kill 
aright, Lanman, Lowrie, Mills, Mornl, Otis, Palmer, Parrot, Ruggles, Seymour, I ho.ir.j, 
EN— [Senate Jourmh pagz 169.] 

Office of the Clerk of the H. R. of the U. S., Washington, ) I 
'■lf^ t September 11, 1840. £J 

do hei4y certify that the foregoing, purporting to be an extract from the Journal of the Senal 
United States, has been truly and correctly copied therefrom. I 

HORATIO N. CRABB, Ass't Clerk Ho. Reps. U. S.g 




ive 

t 



»s appears that Mr. Van Buren voted against striking out the restriction on sh 
jp Territory of Florida. The principle of this restriction, and of the restriction m 
caseof Arkansas, was the same as that involved in the Missouri question. 

Certified copies of the votes of Gen. Hakkison and Mr. Van Btjkkk, referred to 
the foregoing^section : 

On the 16th February, 1819, " the House took up and proceeded to consider the amen 
ments reported from the Committee of the Whole, to the bill to authorize the people 
the Territory of Missouri to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the adm 
sion of such State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States ; and t 
said amendments, being read, were concurred in by the House, with the exception of tfc 
to the end of the 4th section, which prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude in the pr 
posed State; which said amendment being amended to read as follows: 

"And provided, also, That the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be pro 
bited except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall be duly convicted; and that all ch 
dren of slaves, born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free, I 
maybe held to service until the age of twenty-five years. 

"Mr. Beecher moved further to amend the said amendment, by striking out all thereof after 
word convicted; which motion was rejected. 

« A division of the question to agree to the said amendment was then called for, and the questi 
was put to agree to so much thereof as is contained within the same, to the word convicted, inclusi 
and passed in the affirmative: Yeas 87, Nays 76. , 

" The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the members present, those who voted in t 

3 "'Me^AdTms, Allen, Anderson, Pa., Barber, O., Bateman, Beecher. Bennett, BodenCampb, 
Clagett, Comstock, Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, Gage, Gilbert, Ha 
Hall Del, Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, Hopkmson Hostett 
Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving, N. Y„ kinsey, kirtland, Lawyer Lincoln, Linn, Livcrmc 
W Maclav W. P. Maclay. Marchand, Mason, R. L, Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, Samuel Moc 
Morton, Moseley, Murray, Jer. Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson Pawling, Pitkin, Rice Ri 
■Richards, Rogers; Ruggles, Sampson, Savage, Schuyler, Scudder Sergeant, Sherwood bilsb 
Southard Spencer, Tallmadge, Taylor, Terry Tompkins Townsend, Up ha.n, Wallace Wendov 
Westerlo! Whiteside, Wilkin^ Williams, Con., Williams, N. Y., Wilson, Mass., W ilsou, Pa.-87. 

" Those who voted in the negative are— 

"Messrs. Abbott, Anderson, Ken., Austin, Ball, Barbour, Va., Bassett B ly ey. Bloomfield, Blov, 
Bryan, Burwell, Butler, Lou., Cobb, Colston, Cook Cruger, Culbreth Davidson, Desha, Ldwai 
Ervin S. C, Fisher, Gamett, Hall, N. C, HARRISON, Holmes, Johnson, Va, .Johnson A. 
Jones Lewis Little, Lowndes, McLane, Del., McLean, III., McCoy, Marr, Mason, Ma*, Middlet 
H Nelson T. M. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, Newton, Ogden, Owen, Par.ottPegr.m, Peter, Pind 
Peasants, Poindexter, Reed, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson Sawyer, Settle,, Shaw, ^1^1 SlocW 
S. Smith, Bal. Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith Speed, Stewart, N.C., Sto is, Stua.t, A 
Terrell, Trimble, Tucker, Va., Tucker, S. C, Tyler, Walker, NC Walker, Ken., Williams, N C - 

" The question was then put upon agreeing to the residue of the said amendment, and also pas 
in the affirmative : Yeas 82, Nays 78. , . 

"The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the members present, those who voted m 

affirmative are — 



13 

" Messrs. Adams, Allen, Mass., Anderson, Pa., Barber, O., Batenian, Bennett, Bodcn, Clagerf, 
Comstoek, Cral'ts, Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, Gage, Gilbert, Hale, Hall, 
|i Del., Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, Hopkinsoh, Hostetter, Hubbard, 
i Hunter, Huntington, Irving, JV. Y., Kinsey, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lincoln, Livermb're, W. Maclay, VV, 
; P. Maclay, Marchand, Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Jer. 
i Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Pitkin, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, Samp- 
' sou, Savage, Scudder, Sergeant, Sherwood, Silsbee, S. Smith, Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Taylor, 
| Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Whiteside, Wilkin, Williams, Com, Wil- 
liams, JV. Y., Wilson, Mass., Wilson, Pa.— 82. 
" Tliose who voted in the negative are — 

" Messrs. Abbott, Anderson, Ken., Austin, Bail, Barbour, Va., Bassett, Bayley, Beecher, Bloom- 
field, Blount, Bryan, Burwell, Butler, Lou., Campbell, Cobb, Colston, Cook, Cruger, Culbreth, David- 
son, Desha, Edwards, Ervin, S. C, Fisher, Garnett, Hall, JV. C, HARRISON, Holmes, Johnson, Va , 
Johnson, Ken., Jones, Lewis, Linn, Little, Lowndes, McLean, ///., McCoy, Marr, Mason, Mass., 
Mason, R. I., Middleton, H. Nelson, S. M. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, Newton, Ogdea, Owen, Parrott, 
P gram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Poindexter, Reed. Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, 
Shaw, Simkins, Slocmnb, Bal. Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S; Smith, Speed, Stewart, JV. ( ., Storrs, 
Stuart, Md., Terrell, Trimble, Tucker, Va., Tucker, S. C, Tyler, Walker, JV. C, Walker, Ken 
Williams, JV. C— 78. [House Journal 1818-'19, pp.^l— 274.] 

On the 18th of February, 1819, the following proceedings, in regard to the Territory 
of Arkansas, were had in the House of Representatives : 

"The House took up and proceeded to consider the amendments reported 'from the Committee of 
the Whole, to the bill establishing a separate Territorial Government in the southern part of the Ter- 
ritory of Missouri ; and the said amendments, having been read, were concurred in by the House. 

"Mr. Taylor then moved further to amend the said bill, by inserting the following as the second 
section thereof: 

" And be it farther enacted, That neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall'be introduced into 
the said Territory, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party-shall have been 
duly convicted. And all children born of slaves, within the said Territory, shaft he free, but may be 
held to service until the ago of twenty-five years. 

.."„A division of the question, to agree to the said amendment, was called for ; and the question was 
put on so much thereof as is contained within the same, down to the word convicted, inclusive and 
determined in the negative: Yeas 70, Nays 71. 

" The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the members present, those who voted in the 
affirmative are — 

" Messrs. Adams, Allen, Mass., Anderson, Pa., Barber, O., Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Boss Com- 
stock, Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Folger, p'uller, Hall, Del., Hasbrouck, Hendricks Her- 
rick, Hiester, Hitchcock, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving, JV. Y., Lawyer, Lincoln 
Linn, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marc-hand, Mason, R. I., Merrill, Robert Moore Sam- 




" Those who voted in the lvgative are — - • ' 

" Messrs. Anderson, Ken., Austin, Ball, Barbour, 'Va., Bassett, Bayley, Beecher, "Bloomfield, Blount, 
Bryan, Burwell, Butler, Lou., Cobb, Cook, Crawford, Culbreth, Desha, Earl, Edwards, Garnett Hall' 
JV. C, HARRISON, Hogg. Holmes, Johnson, Va., Johnson, Ken., Jones, Kinsey, 'Lewis, Little' 
Lowndes, MeLane, Del., McLean, III., McCoy, Marr, Mason, Mass.., 11. Nelson, *T. M. Nelson' 
New, Newton, Ogdeii, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Porter," Quarles, Reed, Ga! 
Rhea, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith' 
Speed, Stewart, JV. ' C, Storrs, Stuart, Md., Terrell, Trimble, Tucker, Va., Tucker, 5. C Tavlor* 
Walker, .V. C, Williams, JV. C— 71. ' J ' 

"The question was then put to agree to the residue of the said amendment, and passed in the 
affirmative : Yeas 75, Nays 73. 

" The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the members present, those who voted in the 
affirmative are — 

" Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Pa., Barber, Ohio, Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Boss, Comstock, Crafts 
Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, Gilbert, Hall, Del., Hasbrouck, Hendricks' 
Herrick, Hiester, Hitchcock, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving, JV. Y., Kirtland 
Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Morrill, Mills, Robert 
Moore, Samuel Moore, Morton, Mosely, Murray, Jeremiah Nelson, Ogle, Orr. Palmer, Patterson 
Pawling. Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, Sampson, Savage, Schuyler, Scudder, Seybert, Sher- 
wood, Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Wallace, Wendover 
Wcsterlo, Whiteside, Williams, Con., Williams, JV. C, Williams, JV. Y., Wilson, Pa.— 75. 

"Those who voted in the negative are — 

"Messrs. Abbott, Anderson, A"?/., Austin, Ball, Baibour, Va., Bassett, Bayley, Beecher, Bloomfield, 
Blount, Bryan, Burwell, Butler, La., Cobb, Cook, Crawford, Cruger, Culbreth, Desha, Earl, Edwards! 
Garnett. Hall, JV. ('.. HARRISON, Hogg, Holmes, Johnson, Va., Johnson, Ky., Jones, Kinsey, Lewis,' 



14 

v I » n lit •; « oy, Man, Mason, Mass., Middlcton, II 
T. M. Nelson. Nesbitt, New, Ogdou, U»\oii, Parfott, Pegram', Pi Pindall, Pleasants, Quarlee 

Reed, Md., Reed, (hi., Rhea, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocuinb, S. Smith, Alex 
Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart, N. ('.,' Storrs, Stuart, Md., Terrell, Trimble, Tucker, Va. 
Tucker, S. C, Tyler, Walker, N. C— 73." 

Office, Ho. Reps, of the U. S., Washington, September 9, 1840. 
This is to certify that the foregoing writing, on seven pages of paper, is a true extract from tht 
Journal of the House of Representatives of the Uuited States on the loth and lrith days of February 
1819. This certificate is given at the request of the Hon. John C. Clarke, now a member of tin 
House of Representatives from the Slate of New-York. 

H. A. GARLAND, Clerk Ho. Reps. U. S. 



VI. ABOLITINISM. 

Enough appears in the foregoing pages to show that General Harrison is not an 
rVbolionist. The following remarks were made by him before he was a candidate lor 
the Presidency: 

Extracts of General Harrison 1 s speech at Cheviot, Ohio, July 4, 1833. 
There is, however, a subject now beginning to agitate them, [the Southern States,] in relation to 
which, if their alarm has any foundation, the relative situation in which they may .stand to some of 
the States will bo the very reverse to what it now i.s. 1 allude to a supposed disposition in some in- 
dividuals in the non-slaveholding States to interfere with the siave population of the other Stut 
the purpose of iorcing their emancipation. 1 do not call your attention to tins subject, Jcilow-citi- 
zens, from the apprehension that there is a man among you who will lend his aid to a project so preg- 
nant with mischief, and still less that there is a State in the Union which could La broil" lit to give n any 
countenance, but such are the feelings of our Southern brethren upon this subject — such their views, 
and their just views, of the evils which an interference of this kind would bring upon them, that 
long before it would reach the point of receiving the sanction of a State, the evil of the attempt 
would be consummated, as far as we are concerned, by a dissolution of the Union. If there is any 
principle of the Constitution of the United States less disputable than any other, it is, that the slave 
population is under the exclusive control of the States which possess them. If there is any measure 
likely to rivet the chains and blast the prospects of the negroes for emancipation, it is tuc interference 
of unauthorized persons. Can any one wuo is acquainted with the operations of the human mind 
doubt this 1 We have seen how restive our Southern brethren have been, from a supposed violation 
of their political rights. What must be the consequence of an acknowledged violation of these rights, 
(for every man of sense must admit it to be so,) conjoined with an insulting interference ivith their 
domestic concerns ? 

Shall I be accused of want of feeling for the slave, by these remarks? A further examination 
will elucidate the matter. I take it for granted that no one will say that either the Government of 
the United States or those of the non-slaveholding States can interfere in any way with the right of 
property in the slaves. Upon whom, than, are tne efforts of tiic misguided and protended friends of 
the slaves to operate .' It must be either oa the Governments of the slaveholding States, the indivi- 
duals who holu them, or upon the slaves themselves. What are to be the arguments, what tne means, 
by which they are to influence the two first of these ? is there a man vain enough to go to the laud 
of Madison, of Macon, and of Crawford, and tell them that they either do not understand the princi- 
ples of the moral and political rights of man ; or that, understanding, they disregard them ? Can they 
address an argument to the interest or fears of the enlightened population of the slave States, that has 
not occurred to themselves a thousand and a thousand times? To whom, then, are they to address 
themselves but to the slaves? And what can bo said to them, that will not lead to an indiscriminate 
slaughter of ov^ry age and sex, and ultimately to their own destruction ? Should there be an incar- 
nate devil who has imagined with approbation such a catastrophe to his fellow-citizens as I have de- 
scribed, let hi in look to those for whose benefit he would produce it. Particular sections of the country 
may bo laid waste, all the crimes that infuriated man, under the influence of all the black passions 
of his nature, can commit, may be perpetrated for a season ; the tides of the ocean, however, will no 
more certainly change, than that the flood of horrors will be arrested, and turned upon those who 
may got it in motion. 

1 will not stop to inquire into the motives of those who are engaged in this fatal and unconstitu- 
tional project. There may be some who have embarked in it without properly considering its conse- 
quences, and who are actuated by benevolent and virtuous principles. But, if such there are, I am 
very certain that, should they continue their present course, their fellow-citizens will, ere long, ' curse 
the virtues which have undone their country.' 

Should I be asked if there is no way by which the General Government, can aid the cause of 
emancipation, I answer, that it has long been an object near my heart to sec the whole of its surplus 



» 

revenue appropriated to thai object. W ui< moii of the States holding the slaves, there appears 

to me to be no constitutional objection to its being thus applied ; embracing not only the colonization 
of those that may be otherwise freed, but the purchase of freedom of others. By a zealous prosecu- 
tion of a plan formed upon that basis, we might look forward to a day, not very distant, when a North 
American sun would not look down upon a slave. To those who have rejected the plan of coloniza- 
tion, I would ask, if they have well weighed the consequences of emancipation without it ? How 
long would the emancipated negroes remain satisfied with that? Would any one of the Southern 
States then (the negroes armed and organized) be able to resist their claims to a participation in all 
their political rights ? Would it even stop there ? Would they not claim admittance to all the social 
rights and privileges of a community in which, in some instances, they would compose the majority ? 
Let those who take pleasure in the contemplation of such scenes as must inevitably follow, finish 
out the picture. 

If I am correct in the principles here advanced,, I support my assertion, that the discussion on the 
subject of emancipation in the non-slaveholding States, is equally injurious to the slaves and their 
musters, and that it has no sanction in the principles of the Constitution. I must not be understood 
to say, that there is any thing in that instrument which prohibits such discussion. 1 know there is 
not. But the man who believes that the claims which his fellow-citizens have upon him are satis- 
fied by adhering to the letter of the political contract that connect them, must have a very imperfect 
knowledge of the principles upon which our glorious Union was formed, and by which alone it can 
be maintained. I mean those feelings of regard and affection which were manifested in the first 
dawn of our Revolution, which induced every American to think that an injury inflicted upon his 
fellow-citizen, however distant his location, was an injury to himself; which made us, in effect, one 
people, before we had any paper contract; which induced the venerable Shelby, in the second war 
for independence, to leave the comforts which age required, to encounter the dangers and privations 
incident to a wilderness war ; which drew from the same quarter the innumerable battalions of volun- 
teers which preceded and followed him; and from the banks of the distant Appommattox, that band 
of youthful heroes, which has immortalized the appellation by which it was distinguished. Those 
worthy sons of immortal sires did not stop to inquire into the alleged injustice and immotality of the 
Indian war. It was sufficient for them to learn their fellow-citizens were in danger, that the toma- 
hawk and scalping-knife were suspended over the heads of the women and children of Ohio, to in- 
duce them to abandon the ease, and, in many instances, the luxury and splendor by which from 
infancy they had been surrounded, to encounter the : fatigues and dangers of war, amidst the horrors 
of a Canadian winter. 

In 1835, after he was nominated for the Presidency, General Harrison delivered, 
the speech at Vincennes, Indiania, which we have before cited, and which the Abolitionists 
call "infamous." The following is extracted from it: 

Extracts from General Harrison 1 s speech at Vincennes, Indiana, July 4, 1835. 
I have now, fellow-citizens, a few words more to say on another subject, and which is, in my 
opinion, of more importance than any other that is now in the course of discussion in any part of 
the Union. I allude to the societies which have been formed, and the movements of certain indi- 
viduals, in some of the States, in relation to a portion of the population in others. The conduct of 
these persons is the more dangerous, because their object is masked under the garb of disinterested- 
ness and benevolence ; and their course vindicated by arguments and propositions which, in the ab- 
stract, no one can deny. But however fascinating may be the dress with which their schemes are 
presented to their fellow-citizens, with whatever purity of intention they may have been formed and 
sustained, they will be found to carry in their train mischief to the whole Union, and horrors to a 
large portion of it, which it is probable some of the projectors and many of their supporters have 
never thought of; the latter, the first in the series of evils which are to spring from this source, are 
such as you have read of to have been perpetrated on the fair plains of Italy and Gaul by the Scy- 
thian hordes of Atilla and Alaric; and such as most <jf you apprehended upon that memorable night, 
when the tomahawks and war-clubs of the followers of Tccumseh were rattling in your suburbs. I 
regard not the disavowals of any such intention on the part of the authors of these schemes, since, 
upon the examination of the publications which have .been made, they will bo found to contain every 
fact and every argument which would have been used if such had been their objects.' I am certain 
that there is not in this assembly one of these deluded men, and that there are few within the bounds 
f the State. If there are any, I would earnestly entreat them to forbear, to pause in their career, 
and deliberately consider the consequences of their conduct to the whole Union, to the States more 
immediately interested, and to those for whose benefit they profess to act. That the latter will be 
the victims of the weak, injudicious, presumptuous, and unconstitutional efforts to servo them, a 
thorough examination of the subject must convince them. The struggle (and struggle there must be) 
may commence with horrors such as I have described, but it will end with more firmly riveting the 
chains, or in the utter extirpation of those whose cause they advocate. Am I wrong, fellow-citizens t 
in applying the terms weak, presumptuous, a nd unconstitutional, to the measures of the emancipators? 
A slight examination will, I think, show that I am not. In a vindication of the objects of a conven- 
tion which was lately held in one of the towns of Ohio, which I saw in a newspaper, it was said that 
nothing more was intended than to produce a state of public feeling which would lead to an amend- 
of the Constitution, authorizing the abolition or slavery in the United States, Now, can an 



16 

amendment of the Constitution be effected without the consent of the Southern States ? What, then, 
is the proposition to be submitted to them ? It is this : The present provisions of the Constitution 
secure to you the right (a right which you held before it was made, and which you have never given 
up) to manage your domestic concerns in your own way ; but as we are convinced that you do not 
manage them properly, we want you to put in the hands of the General Government, in the councils 
of which we have the majority, the control over these matters, the effect of which will be virtually 
to transfer the power from yours into our hands. Again, in some of the States, and in sections of 
others, the black population far exceeds that of the white. Some the emancipators propose an im- 
mediate abolition. What is the proposition, then, as it regards those States and parts of States, but 
the alternatives of amalgamation with the blacks, or an exchange of situations with them ? Is there 
any man of common sense who does not believe that the emancipated blacks, being a majority, will 
not insist upon a full participation of political rights with the whites, and, when possessed of these, 
that they will not contend for a full share of social rights also? What but the' extremity of weakness 
and folly could induce any one to think that such propositions as these could be listened to by a peo- 
ple so intelligent as those of the Southern States? Further, the emancipators generally declare that 
•it is their intention to effect their object (although their acts contradict the assertion) by no other 
means than by convincing the slaveholders that the immediate emancipation of the slaves is called 
for both by moral obligation and sound policy. An unfledged youth at the moment of his leaving 
(indeed, in many instances ^before he has left it) his Theodogical Seminary, undertakes to give lec- 
tures upon morals to the countrymen of Wythe, Tucker, Pendleton, and Lowndes, and lessons of 
political wisdom to States whose affairs have so recently been directed by Jefferson and Madison, 
Macon and Crawford. Is it possible that instances of greater vanity and presumption could be ex- 
hibited ? 

But the course pursued by the emancipators is unconstitutional. I do not say that there are any 
words in the Constitution which forbid such discussions as they say they are engaged in. I know 
that there are not. And there is even an article which secures to the citizens the right to express 
and publish their opinions without restriction. But in the construction of the constitution it is al- 
ways necessary to refer to the circumstances under which it was framed, and to ascertain its meaning 
by a comparison of its provisions with each other, and with the previous situation of the several 
States who were parties to it. In a portion of these slavery was recognised, and they took care tc 
have the right secured to them to follow ana reclaim such of them as were fugitives to other States. 
The laws of Congress passed under this power have provided punishment to any who shall oppose or 
interrupt the exercise of this right. Now, can any one believe that the instrument which contains a 
provision of this kind, which authorizes a master to pursue his slave into another State, take him back, 
and provides a punishment for any citizen or citizens of that State who should oppose him, should at 
the same time authorize the latter to assemble together, to pass resolutions and adopt addresses, not 
only to encourage, the slaves to leave their masters, but to cut their throats before they do so? I 
insist that, if the citizens of the non-slaveholding States can avail themselves of the article of the 
constitution which prohibits the restriction of speech or of the press, to publish any thing injurious 
to the rights of the slaveholding States, they can go to the extreme that I have mentioned, and effect 
any thing further which writing or speaking could effect. But, fellow-citizens, these are not the 
principles of the constitution. Such a construction would defeat one of the great objects of its for- 
mation, which was that of securing the peace and harmony of the States which were parties to it. 
The liberty of speech and of the press were given as the most effectual means to preserve to each and 
every citizen their own rights, and to the States the rights which appertained to them at the time of 
its adoption. 

It could never have been expected that it would be used by the citizens of one portion of the States 
for the purpose of depriving those of another portion of the rights which they had reserved at the 
adoption of the constitution, and in the exercise of which none but themselves have any concern or 
interest. If slavery is an evil, (and no one more readily acknowledges it than I do,) the evil is with 
them. If there is guilt in it, the guilt is theirs, not ours, since neither the States where it does riot 
exist, nor the Government of the United States, can, without usurpation of power and the violation of 
a solemn compact, do any thing to remove it without the consent of those who are immediately interested. 
With that consent, there is not a man in the whole world who would more willingly contribute his 
aid to accomplish it than I would. If my vote could effect it, every surplus dollar in the Treasury 
should be appropriated to that object. But they will neither ask for aid nor consent to be aided, so 
long as the illegal, persecuting, and dangerous movements are in progress of which I complain ; the 
interest of all concerned requires that these should be immediately stopped. This can only be done by 
the force of public opinion, and that cannot too soon be brought into operation. Every movement 
which is made by the abolitionists in the non-slaveholding States is viewed by our Southern brethren 
as an attack upon their rights, and which, if persisted in, must in the end eradicate those feelings of 
attachment and affection between the citizens of all the States which were produced by a community 
of interests and dangers in the war of the Revolution, which was the foundation of our happy Union, 
and by a continuance of which it alone can be preserved. I entreat you, then, fellow-citizens, to 
frown upon the measures which are to produce results so much to be deprecated. The opinions 
which I have now given, I have omitted no opportunity for the last two years to lay before the peo- 
ple of my own State. I have taken the liberty to express them here, knowing that, even if thev 
should unfortunately not accord with yours, they would he kindly received. 



89 W 





"oV 1 











& 











V 








^*« ^ o^ a 







C>^ft 

^* .V ^, **ft 







*o. ♦'T7S* A 










'* 0° 



» ^ 






** o 



0* o»JL*^^b. 




:- <w *\ 















^ JF 






J 0>V 



» . » • » 



















**' » 



S 



< 




* 6 ....%• '* ~*'^ 

















§V _«>' 






r ..*»• 



MX./ 4fo^- * 



WERT BOOKBINDING 






»<K. 













Qrantv»ltc, PA 



^ 
















